United States v. Perales

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appelleev.JUAN PERALES, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas

Before
STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit
Judges.

CARL
E. STEWART, CHIEF JUDGE:

Defendant-Appellant
Juan Perales appeals the district court's denial of his
motion to suppress several bundles of cocaine discovered and
seized after he consented to the search of his vehicle.
Because we conclude the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Perales's consent to the search was
voluntary, we AFFIRM.

I.
BACKGROUND

On
January 13, 2016, Agent Michael Tamez ("Agent
Tamez") of the Kingsville Specialized Crimes and
Narcotics Task Force observed a Chevrolet Silverado pickup
truck with a non-functioning brake light; a computer check of
the vehicle's license plate indicated that the truck
might not be insured. Because both the faulty brake light and
driving without valid liability insurance are violations of
the Texas Transportation Code, Agent Tamez initiated a
traffic stop.[1] Agent Tamez asked Perales, who was the
sole occupant of the truck, for his identification and proof
of liability insurance. Perales provided his identification,
but could not readily locate his insurance documentation.
According to Agent Tamez, "[Perales] looked underneath
the seat. He looked near the left door panel . . . and
eventually he went to the glove compartment. And the
documentation was inside the glove compartment, " which
was completely empty except for the insurance documents.
Agent Tamez observed that the insurance policy had been
purchased the day before the traffic stop and was only good
for thirty days. At the suppression hearing, Agent Tamez
testified that, in his experience as a drug interdiction
officer, it was common in instances of drug trafficking for
the driver of the vehicle to be unfamiliar with the location
of insurance documents and for the interior of the vehicle to
lack signs of personalization. It was also common for
smugglers to get a 30-day liability insurance policy so that
if the vehicle is seized carrying contraband, "the
[smuggling] organization itself does not lose out on money by
buying a six month or year long (sic) insurance policy."

After
receiving Perales's identification and insurance
paperwork, Agent Tamez asked Perales "how he was doing,
" and asked him to "exit the vehicle and step to
the rear." Perales complied, and Agent Tamez "asked
him to sit inside the front seat of [the] patrol unit."
Perales again complied. Agent Tamez climbed into the
driver's seat of the patrol unit, explained the traffic
violation to Perales, and told Perales that he was going to
issue him a warning. Agent Tamez began preparing the warning,
which he testified required that he both verify and input
information into three different computer systems using three
different screens. While preparing the warning, Agent Tamez
noticed that the name and address listed on the vehicle
registration differed from that included on Perales's
driver's license. Agent Tamez then asked Perales a series
of questions about several subjects, including how long
Perales had owned the truck, where he was traveling to and
from, and the purpose for his trip. Perales responded that he
owned the truck and had purchased it three months prior, and
that he was traveling to Houston from Brownsville to find a
job. Although Agent Tamez observed that Perales was not
nervous when answering his questions, Agent Tamez testified
that Perales gave inconsistent or deceptive answers to his
questions. Agent Tamez also drew suspicion from the make and
model of Perales's vehicle, which, in his experience and
training, was commonly used by drug smugglers to hide drugs.
Agent Tamez asked Perales whether the truck contained any
drugs or weapons, and Perales responded it did not.

Based
on his interaction with Perales, Agent Tamez asked for
consent to search the vehicle. Perales offered consent, and
Agent Tamez began searching the vehicle. At the time of the
request, Agent Tamez had yet to return Perales's
driver's license or issue him the warning citation.
Perales remained seated in the front seat of Agent
Tamez's patrol unit unrestrained.[2]

Agent
Tamez and Agent Moya searched Perales's vehicle and
ultimately found 2.99 kilograms of cocaine concealed in the
engine compartment of the truck.[3] Agent Tamez also found a
notebook piece of paper with directions to Charleston, South
Carolina, in Perales's back pocket. Perales was
subsequently charged by criminal complaint with conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute, and possessing with intent
to distribute, more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B).

Before
trial, Perales sought to suppress the bundles of cocaine
discovered during the search of the truck, arguing, inter
alia, that he did not voluntarily consent to the search
of his vehicle.[4] The district court held an evidentiary
hearing on Perales's motion to suppress, during which it
heard testimony from Agent Tamez and watched a video
recording of the traffic stop that was captured on Agent
Tamez's body camera. At the close of testimony and after
hearing additional argument from both sides, the district
court concluded that Agent Tamez conducted a "pretty
routine traffic stop, " and that "[Perales] clearly
gave consent." As is relevant to the instant appeal, the
district court found that Agent Tamez did not use coercive
police procedures, although it ambivalently opined that
placing Perales in the patrol unit might have been
coercive.[5] Concerning the voluntariness of
Perales's consent, the district court concluded that
"there are factors going both ways" with "more
factors . . . in favor of finding the consent to be
voluntary, " and that, given the totality of the
circumstances, "the consent was voluntary under the
law." The district court orally denied Perales's
motion to suppress, and, after a two-day jury trial, Perales
was convicted of the substantive drug count. At sentencing,
the district court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence of 60 months' imprisonment and four years of
supervised release.

II.
DISCUSSION

A.
Standard of Review

In
reviewing a district court's grant of a motion to
suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, this court reviews the district court's
factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758
(5th Cir. 2003). Voluntariness of consent is a factual
inquiry that is reviewed for clear error. United States
v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326, 338 (5th Cir. 2014). A factual
finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible when
reviewed in the light of the entire record. United States
v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2001).
"Where a court has based its denial on live testimony,
'the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong
because the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses.'" Rounds, 794 F.3d at 338
(quoting United States v. Santiago, 410 F.3d 193,
197 (5th Cir. 2005)). We view the evidence introduced at a
suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party, here, the Government. United States v.
Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir. 1999).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.